Ethnicity and the Stage 263Persians and Trojans
Dramatic Persians and dramatic Trojans hold an exceptional position on account of their
identity as the historical and mythical enemies of the Hellenic world, respectively. The
Trojan War has been viewed as the mythic precedent of the Greeks overcoming an East-
ern army, thus placing the Persian Wars in the heroic realm. Accordingly, by virtue of
their (supposedly) close connection to their Asian neighbors in Greek imagination, the
fifth-century Trojans are said to have been “orientalized,” as additionally suggested by
the possibly ideological conflation of Troy and Phrygia or Asia (E. Hall 1989: 26–39,
68–74; Erskine 2001: 61; cf. Mattison 2009; Papadodima 2013). However, the two
groups’ geographic association and their common status as Hellas’ defeated adversaries
are largely overshadowed by crucial differences in their essential roles in the Greek imagi-
nation: one a (nearly) contemporary invader, the other a conquered enemy of the distant
past, who lived on in rich mythological and literary tradition. Consequently, the ways in
which the Greek world’s confrontation with the two forces is used as part of the explo-
ration of Greek identity are different in significant respects. A common denominator,
when it comes to tragedy, is thepathosgenerated by the representation of the suffering
of the victims of war.
The Persian invasion is the subject of Aeschylus’Persians, a unique and widely discussed
play (most recently, see E. Hall 1996; Pelling 1997: 1–19; Harrison 2000; Rosen-
bloom 2006; Garvie 2009), which presents the recent Greek victory at Salamis from
a Persian point of view. As a result, it rehearses numerous elements that stress the Per-
sians’ foreignness on a pragmatic level (e.g., setting, language, clothing) and convey a
strong Oriental atmosphere—accentuated by displays of excessive emotionalism (198–9,
907–1077; cf. Hdt. 8.99–100.2; see E. Hall 1996: 168–9) and the invocation and
appearance of Darius’ ghost, possibly blasphemous to an Athenian audience (Harrison
2000: 89; butcontrasee Taplin 1977: 115 and Podlecki 1993: 56–7). More impor-
tantly, the drama elucidates three cardinal customs that differentiate Persian from Greek,
and particularly Athenian, civilization (effectively encapsulated in 230–45): despotism,
expansionism, and luxury, including great trust in numerical supremacy (Konstan 1987:
59–73). These deep-rooted traits, which are more extensively explored in Herodotus’
Histories, are not irrelevant to the Persians’ present destruction, if viewed in combination
with one another. Inversely, and although the naval battle itself is rather briefly narrated
(355–432), it is understood that Greek conventions and values (especially freedom and
collectivity) played a part in the Greek victory (Goldhill 2002: 50–61).
At the same time, however, significant emphasis is placed on the particular way in which
Xerxes made use of his community’s customs. The royal family, and also the Chorus, who
have a substantial involvement, view their defeat as being inextricably bound up with their
king’s conduct—disobeying his father’s advice (780–6), bridging the Hellespont (e.g.,
65–71, 744–5), and committing sacrilege (807–15; cf. 81–114). They actually blame
Xerxes for (what they conceive as) the anticipated fall of their empire (e.g., 548–57;
cf. 725, 753–8), even though this collective acknowledgment of his failure does not
preclude his kin and subjects receiving him with pity and respect.
Darius, despite being a Persian king who had had his own share in expansionist, and
occasionally unsuccessful, enterprises, highlights truths that are directly relevant but not